Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 640 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#171

Post by sys_64738 »

purpleidea wrote: post #107

Honestly, I have serious FOMO about this. I am never going to run a Mac (or worse: Windows) I'm 100% on Linux, but I seriously hate it that I can't reliably work at a coffee shop for five hours. Not even doing that much other than some music, coding, and a few compiles of golang code. My Apple friends get 12+ hrs of battery life. I really wish Lenovo+Fedora or whoever would get together and make that possible.

> I'm 100% on Linux, but I seriously hate it that I can't reliably work at a coffee shop for five hours. Not even doing that much other than some music, coding, and a few compiles of golang code.

Don't you drink any coffee in the coffee shop? I hope you do. But, still, being there for /five/ hours is excessive.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#172

Post by creshal »

pzo wrote: post #142
ben-schaaf wrote: post #101

Battery efficiency comes from a million little optimizations in the technology stack, most of which comes down to using the CPU as little as possible. As such the instruction set architecture and process node aren't usually that important when it comes to your battery life. If you fully load the CPU and calculate how much energy a AI340 needs to perform a fixed workload and compare that to a M1 you'll probably find s…

> most of which comes down to using the CPU as little as possible. it least on mobile platform apple advocate the other way with race to sleep - do calculation as fast as you can with powerful cores so that whole chip can go back to sleep earlier and more often take naps.

Intel stipulated the same under the name HUGI (Hurry Up and Go Idle) about 15 years ago when ultrabooks were the new hot thing.

But when Apple says it, software devs actually listen.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#173

Post by aurareturn »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #156
aurareturn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Cinebench 2025 single threaded, M4 is roughly 4x more efficient and 50% faster than Strix Halo. These numbers can be verified by googling Notebookcheck. How many iterations to match Apple?

>How many iterations to match Apple? Until AMD can built a tailor made OS for their chips and build their own laptops.

Here's an M4 Max running macOS running Parallels running Windows compared to AMD's very best laptop chip:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13494385?baseli...

M4 Max is still faster. Note that the M4 Max is only given 14 out of 16 cores, likely reserving 2 of them for macOS.

How do you explain this when Windows has zero Apple Silicon optimizations?

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#174

Post by rwallace »

marshray wrote: post #120
rwallace wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any CPU invented since the late eighties that doesn't have paged virtual memory. Am I misunderstanding what you mean? Can you expand on where you are getting the 4x number from?

I doubt any CPU has more levels of address translation, caching, and other layers of memory access indirection than AMD/Intel 64 at this point.

That's an interesting question about the number of levels of address translation. Does anyone have numbers for that, and how much latency and energy an extra layer costs?

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#175

Post by aurareturn »

yalok wrote: post #86
aurareturn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fastest and most efficiency Windows laptop in the world is an M4 MacBook running Parallels.

How does it compare with VMWare? I’d rather not use Parallels… edit: whoever downvoted - please explain, what's wrong with preferring VMWare? also, for me, historically (2007-2012), it's been more performant, but didn't use it lately.

Looks about the same between Parallels and VMWare: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13494570?baseli...

Also, here's proof that M4 Max running Parallels is the fastest Windows laptop: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13494385?baseli...

M4 Max is running macOS running Parallels running Windows and is only using 14 out of 16 possible cores and it's still faster than AMD's very best laptop chip.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#176

Post by chasil »

aurareturn wrote: post #73
DuckConference wrote: post #52

They're big, expensive chips with a focus on power efficiency. AMD and Intel's chips that are on the big and expensive side tend toward being optimized for higher power ranges, so they don't compete well on efficiency, while their more power efficient chips tend toward being optimized for size/cost. If you're willing to spend a bunch of die area (which directly translates into cost) you can get good numbers on the ot…

Per core, Apple’s Performance cores are no bigger than AMD’s Zen cores. So it’s a myth that they’re only fast and efficient because they are big. What makes Apple silicon chips big is they bolt on a fast GPU on it. If you include the die of a discrete GPU with an x86 chip, it’d be the same or bigger than M series. You can look at Intel’s Lunar Lake as an example where it’s physically bigger than an M4 but slower in C…

Is it not true that the instruction decoder is always active on x86, and is quite complex?

Such a decoder is vastly less sophisticated with AArch64.

That is one obvious architectural drawback for power efficiency: a legacy instruction set with variable word length, two FPUs (x87 and SSE), 16-bit compatibility with segmented memory, and hundreds of otherwise unused opcodes.

How much legacy must Apple implement? Non-kernel AArch32 and Thumb2?

Edit: think about it... R4000 was the first 64-bit MIPS in 1991. AMD64 was introduced in 2000.

AArch64 emerged in 2011, and in taking their time, the designers avoided the mistakes made by others.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#177

Post by teekert »

I think it is getting close: [0]

(Edit, I read lower in the thread that the software platform also needs to know how to make efficient use of this performance per watt, ie, by not taking all the watts you can get.)

[0] https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-ai-max-395-9950x-9950x...

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#178

Post by aurareturn »

omnimus wrote: post #170
chvid wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Macs today are not designed to be easily repairably but instead to be lighter and otherwise better integrated - I believe that is consequence of consumer preferences and not shady business practices. As for the services - it is a bit off topic as I believe Apple makes a profit on their macs alone ignoring their services business. But in general I have less of a problem with a subscription / fee-driven services busine…

Macbooks are one of the heaviest laptops you can buy. I think they are doing it for the premium feel - it is extremely sturdy. I recently got some random lenovo YOGA for linux to go along side my macbook and it weighs less, is as thin and even has dedicated gpu - while having 2 user replaceable M.2 slots. It is also very sturdy but not as sturdy Macbooks. What i am saying is that Apple could for sure fit replaceable…

  Macbooks are one of the heaviest laptops you can buy. I think they are doing it for the premium feel - it is extremely sturdy.
Yes, because of the metal enclosure while nearly all Windows laptop makers use plastic. Macs are usually the thinnest laptops in their class though.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#179

Post by Aissen »

ptman wrote: post #91
ac29 wrote: post #36

One downside of Framework is they use DDR instead of LPDDR. This means you can upgrade or replace the RAM, but it also means memory is much slower and more power hungry. Its also probably worth putting the laptop in "efficiency" mode (15W sustained, 25W boost per Framework). The difference in performance should be fairly negligible compared to balanced mode for most tasks and it will use less energy.

Isn't Ryzen AI (Strix Point?) using similar non-upgradeable LPDDR?

Framework does not have any design with those LPDDR packages.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#180

Post by mcny »

john01dav wrote: post #141
qcnguy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the more relevant case for laptops is macOS, which is heavily optimized for battery life and power draw in ways that Linux just isn't, neither is Windows. A lot of the problems here can't actually be fixed by intel, amd, or anyone designing x86 laptops because getting that level of efficiency requires the ability to strongly lead the app developer community. It also requires highly competent operating system deve…

Power efficiency is very important to servers too, for cost instead of for battery life. But, energy is energy. Thus, I suspect that the power draw is in userland systems that are specific to desktop, like desktop environments. Thus, using a simpler desktop environment may be worthwhile.

I used Ubuntu around 2015 - 2018 and got hit with a nasty defect around gnome online accounts integrations (please correct me if the words are wrong here). For some reason, it got stuck in a loop or a bad state on my machine. I have since then decided that I will never add any of my online accounts, Facebook, Google, or anything to Gnome.
Post reply on HN